I can, if you wish, make these corrections — probably he won't be stubborn about it, but if he is, then we'll have to discuss it and make a choice: take what's offered, or don't take it. I simply cannot agree with your proposal to remove the mention of Bakharev's pamphlet — not so much because it would be extremely unpleasant for the author, but because I myself consider Bakharev's pamphlet useful (despite its shortcomings), raising a genuinely important question and, on the whole, solving it correctly. Byvaly writes not only about the old but also about the new; if in the 1870s serious revolutionaries had no need for such pamphlets, then we now, undoubtedly, do need them, and we were certainly planning to place a critical but approving note about it in the newspaper (perhaps not in No. 1). The attraction to the movement of very young working-class and intellectual youth, the almost complete oblivion or rather ignorance by them of how and what things were in the old days, the absence of an organization of "experienced" revolutionaries — all this makes it necessary to come forward with pamphlets on rules of conduct for socialists. The Poles have such a pamphlet, it seems, much more substantive than Bakharev's. Vera Ivanovna agrees that the mention of Bakharev should not be removed. Under certain conditions, if you think it useful, it might perhaps not be out of place to discuss the question of the possible significance of such pamphlets on the pages of the journal?

We are taking Byvaly's article for the journal, not the newspaper. Vera Ivanovna says that our newspaper comes out at a step lower in terms of the level of readers it is designed for than you probably suppose. Generally, Vera Ivanovna is fairly dissatisfied with the newspaper:

[The title of the pamphlet has not been established. — Editor]

V. I. LENIN

the type of "Rabochoe Delo," only more literary, more polished... I sent one article to Pavel Borisovich with a request to forward it to you. The question of shortening and cutting Kautsky's resolution for the size of a newspaper article would be quite inconvenient, and that's why we would like to place your little article or note on this question in the journal. Or perhaps you think to limit yourself to very, very little? Probably even a note on this will require about 10 printed pages, that is about 20,000 letters, if not more?

Regarding Solovyov, I confess I thought you would have the inclination to write a note. Riepmann will hardly undertake it: I'll write to him, but I have almost no hope.

Vera Ivanovna is ready to write about the Decembrists, but what about the materials? We'll write immediately asking them to send what they can. Perhaps you will also indicate what would be especially important to have for this work. Perhaps especially important are historical journals, which are unobtainable here.

Gurevich is writing a large article for the journal on French affairs, for the newspaper — on the national congress. Goldendakh or Nakhamkis wanted to write on the international congress, but they decided not to.

Please send me your article "Socialism and Political Struggle" (you can send it through the same address to Lehmann by registered mail); I don't think that on account of comradely criticism the article could fail to please Alexei, who, if I remember, told me that he acknowledged the justice of Pavel Borisovich's objections.

We will renumber the individual sheets (if they aren't already numbered), and the typesetters will hardly lose them: they always deal with individual sheets, and we do the same for the newspaper, and up to now haven't lost any. The question of the "responsible person," it seems, will be decided tomorrow or the day after — it seems favorably (today I received word of two agreements; tomorrow I expect important news), and we think we still can't do without (for the beginning, at least) the help of Blumenfeld, whom [name] agreed to take on as a typesetter and

TO G. V. PLEKHANOV. 9 NOVEMBER 1900

who would get our work on its feet, train the Germans and so forth. As soon as everything is finally cleared up, I'll write or telegraph him right away. We would very much like to have your article "Once Again..." as soon as possible in view of the possibility that it might have to go directly to typesetting.

Against "Rabochaya Mysl" — strictly speaking, only against the article "Our Reality" in the "Separate Supplement" — I had written an article "A Backward Direction in Russian Social-Democracy" a year ago; now they've sent it here, and I'm thinking of reworking it for the journal with additions against "Rabochoe Delo."

I'm not quite clear what "last No." of "Rabochaya Mysl" you're speaking of? The last issue of the newspaper was No. 8 — (with a new editorial from the 5th page), where among other things was printed a renunciation of the famous parallels at the end of the article on Chernyshevsky published in the "Separate Supplement." Is this what you mean?

I would consider the note "How Far They've Gone?" useful, although as to the "militancy" of "Rabochaya Mysl" I now have doubts: certain steps "toward us" (raison de plus) they still want to take, and one ought to try to count them as improvements. But an attack, of course, should still be made: without an attack they are incorrigible. I recently corresponded with my old comrade from the Union, Vetrinskaya, and told her that I was joining Alexei's words: "you and I will have to struggle." "Struggle, if you're not ashamed," she answered Alexei. I wrote that I'm not at all ashamed

I wanted to have a talk with you also about the economic direction and Alexei's views, but it's gotten very late, and I'll limit myself to a couple of words: the economic direction, of course, was always an error, but this direction is very young, and the enthusiasm for "economic" agitation was (and is in some places) even without the direction, and it was a lawful and inevitable companion

See Works, 5th ed., vol. 4, pp. 240—273. — Editor
— forgive me for expressing myself that way. — Editor
— improvable, not hopeless. — Editor
See the present volume, p. 55. — Editor

V. I. LENIN

of a step forward in the situation of our movement that existed in Russia in the late 1880s or early 1890s. This situation was so devastating that you probably don't even imagine it, and one cannot condemn people who, struggling out of this situation, stumbled. A certain narrowness was, for the purposes of this struggle, necessary and lawful — it was, but when they began to elevate it into a theory and link it with Bernsteinism, the matter, of course, radically changed. The naturalness of enthusiasm for "economic" agitation and service to the "mass" movement, if I remember correctly, you yourself recognized in the "New Campaign," written in 1896, when Vilna economism was already a thing of the past, and Petersburg economism was being born and taking shape.

I shake your hand warmly and ask you not to complain about the disorder of this letter.

Your Petrov

Written 9 November 1900

Sent from Munich to Geneva

First published in 1956 in the journal "Communist" No. 16

# TO P. B. AKSELROD

16. XI.

Just now received, dear P. B., your notes on the article "Urgent Tasks." Many thanks for them. What do you think about the unpopularity of this article? Won't it be a dissonance?

I'm sending you the preface to the pamphlet "May Days in Kharkov"*** (in the manuscript which you have, some but very minor corrections were made). Please give your opinion on it and make your remarks without hesitation, in pen or pencil right there.

I'm also sending a document received from Russia about the merger of the St. Petersburg Workers' Organization with the "Union

— on the agenda. — Editor

See V. I. Lenin. Works, 5th ed., vol. 4, pp. 371—377. — Editor
*** See ibid., pp. 363—370. — Editor

TO P. B. AKSELROD. 19 NOVEMBER 1900

of Struggle." They say the Petersburg comrades are making a huge fuss over this, and Kiev apparently has already adopted this program. It's necessary to write about it. Will you have the inclination to do it? (After reading this "document" — "fruit," as brother calls it, please forward it to G. V. if you don't need it.)

We've finally found a responsible person: Ettinger has agreed to sign two issues in any case, declining any claims regarding "tone" and so forth and reserving for herself the right, after 2 issues, to make a public statement of her disagreement with the content and so forth. One can only hope she fulfills this condition (she earnestly asks only that for now, until the issue comes out, no one say anything about it) — and in that time we'll either find another person or arrange things differently. My negotiations with Ettinger were conducted personally through the mediation of Bukhgolts, who left the Union with the aim of taking certain steps in a conciliatory spirit. I'll write in more detail about these steps later, especially since there's little of interest in them.

Now in the next few days we hope to begin typesetting.

I shake your hand warmly.

Your Petrov

Written 16 November 1900

Sent from Munich to Zurich

First published in 1925 in Lenin Collection III

# TO P. B. AKSELROD

19. XI. 00.

Dear P. B.! Just received your letter of 17. XI. and read your remarks with great interest. Of course, we will certainly try to send you as many articles as possible, so this is useful in all respects for the publications, not to mention your natural interest. One thing is unfortunate — that our secretary is overworked: this should still change soon,

— is overexhausted. — Editor

V. I. LENIN

since serious reforms are being undertaken regarding the Kinderpflege.

Danevich sent a note for the newspaper on the French national congress of about 12,000 letters: I hesitate to say whether it's entirely suitable. It's quite possible that with your chronicle we'll get by without it: we await your chronicle with impatience. For the journal Danevich is writing a large article on French affairs.

The enclosed letter is for Rolau: my colleague is writing to him on our business about "tea," since we think my correspondent, Skubik, isn't in the city. Please be so kind as to deliver this letter to Rolau and ask him to answer us immediately (forgive me for troubling you with such a request: I hope you'll be able to entrust this to Gurevich at least). If Rolau isn't in the city, would you be so kind as to read the letter to him and discuss the content of the letter with Skubik's wife at least: the fact is that we need to get a definite answer as quickly as possible, and if neither Rolau nor Skubik is there, then otherwise than by personal conversation between you and someone from their circle we can't achieve this.

Regarding L. Akselrod's article I fully agree with you that it should first be sent to G. V.

I shake your hand warmly and apologize for a hasty letter.

Your Petrov

Sent from Munich to Zurich

First published in 1925 in Lenin Collection III

# TO P. B. AKSELROD

26. XI. 00.

Dear P. B.!

Just now a letter arrived from our mutual friend, who writes that everything is arranged. At last the business will proceed "firmly"! He earnestly asks you to send

— care of children. — Editor

"Why Don't We Want to Go Backward?" — Editor

TO P. B. AKSELROD. 7 DECEMBER 1900

(to me) as quickly as possible the passport of Nusperli (or Khusperli? It's not clear, but you of course know).

Tomorrow, 27. XI., he begins typesetting and, consequently, one can hope that in about two weeks (or thereabouts) everything will be completely ready. Therefore it would be very important that within a week all the material be on hand — including your foreign chronicle. I hope this deadline won't force you to break off anything, because probably you don't have much left. V. I. is writing today to G. V. to hurry the person writing about the Paris Congress. References to his article (if you make them) can of course be made even before receiving his article.

I shake your hand warmly and wish you complete health.

Your Petrov

P.S. Today I'm sending the manuscript (G. V.'s) to Dietz. Perhaps things will proceed decisively there too. It's time!

Sent from Munich to Zurich

First published in 1925 in Lenin Collection III

# TO P. B. AKSELROD

7/XII. 00.

Dear P. B. Forgive me for not answering you in Baynova's letter: illness prevented me. But now, having consulted with V. I., I see that the situation is very serious: the foreign chronicle is necessary, the newspaper's first page is already being printed, the second is ready except for the chronicle. The space for the chronicle is supposed to be

He writes: "I'll send it back as soon as I turn up here."

The author of the article "International Socialist Congress in Paris" is Kh. G. Rakovsky. — Editor

The text refers to one of G. V. Plekhanov's articles, which was later published in the journal "Zarya" No. 1. — Editor

V. I. LENIN

about 26,000 letters. In the extreme case we'll cut something else.

Please send therefore right away what there is and what you can. I'll await your answer with impatience.

Address:

Herr Georg Kittmeyer,
Kaiserstrasse 53.
München (inside: für Meyer).

I shake your hand warmly.

Your Petrov

I'm very sorry to keep pressing you. But what's to be done? I hope that just as with the article on Liebknecht, you'll manage with this too.

Sent from Munich to Zurich
First published in 1925 in Lenin Collection III

# TO P. B. AKSELROD

11. XII.

Dear P. B.!

I thank you very much for quickly sending your remarks on the note on the split. I've made the corrections you desired, but could only not remove entirely the words about the merits of "Rabochoe Delo" — it seems to me this would be unfair toward an opponent who has not only offenses but also services to social-democracy.

Poletaev communicated to me news that greatly rejoiced me — that you've now somewhat freed yourself from kefir and could come for a time to us. How excellent that would be! — in terms of arrangement, I think there will be no difficulties, a room can be found by the week. You have a Swiss citizen's passport. I'm still waiting (still waiting, because I've long and fruitlessly waited) for the speedy arrival of both friends. Alexei writes that he's "eager," but various circumstances are delaying him somewhat. Another friend hasn't written for a while — but I don't think this could indicate anything very bad. By the time they arrive, "Iskra" (in 1—2 weeks) and "Zarya" (Dietz hired a second typesetter and is pushing hard, urging us on) will probably come out — some things will also be clarified regarding transport (oh, a difficult question!) and regarding materials, and then arranging a general conference would be extremely desirable. I very much dream of it.

How's the young Adler's article? Is he writing? When will it be ready? Please hurry him with a letter and — if the correspondence burdens you, or if there threatens to be great loss of time from the Zurich-Munich-Vienna route — then give him Lehmann's address (Herr Br. Med. Carl Lehmann, Gabertsbergerstrasse 20a. München. On the second envelope: für Meyer) — and give us his address, and we'll demand an answer from him.

We want to print "Zarya" in 1,000 copies for Russia and 500 for abroad.

I await the chronicle with impatience — and then a meeting.

Your Petrov

For Gurevich:

Please take the trouble with this matter: it would be necessary to get a good Zurich address through which Efimov (Dietz's typesetter) could conduct correspondence with Geneva, that is, an intermediary, forwarding address. If you can, please send it to me as quickly as possible and in any case scribble at least a couple of words in reply right away.

I shake your hand warmly and send greetings to Vera Pavlovna.

Your Petrov